Thank you, Jorgen for your overview of where we've come from and how much has changed. You mention debate, which brought to mind my chance to see around 1964 William Buckley debate Ronnie Duggar, who was editor of the liberal Texas Observer. Buckley was concerned that Lyndon Johnson would get liberal legislation through Congress as a reaction to Kennedy's recent assassination. Fortunately Buckley was right. I'm looking forward to your new Substack.
Debate can be interesting to watch, and you have had a memorable experience! It can also be interesting to take part in, because, we all have valuable insight and reasonable concerns about most things that could affect our lives. If we are of an empathetic nature, we can have concerns as well about things that affect other people's lives too.
There is something worrying, I think, in letting debates take place only on TV between "the usual suspects" — all those same politicians and journalists who always debate everything. We must try to engage some more more people, and we must try to expand the debates to cover a lot more than the traditional for or against something.
Of course, listening skills need to be kept in shape, and exercises in processing and evaluating other people's thoughts can be great training, so listening to other people debating isn't bad — it just needs to be supplemented with also taking part.
Thank you, Jorgen for your overview of where we've come from and how much has changed. You mention debate, which brought to mind my chance to see around 1964 William Buckley debate Ronnie Duggar, who was editor of the liberal Texas Observer. Buckley was concerned that Lyndon Johnson would get liberal legislation through Congress as a reaction to Kennedy's recent assassination. Fortunately Buckley was right. I'm looking forward to your new Substack.
Debate can be interesting to watch, and you have had a memorable experience! It can also be interesting to take part in, because, we all have valuable insight and reasonable concerns about most things that could affect our lives. If we are of an empathetic nature, we can have concerns as well about things that affect other people's lives too.
There is something worrying, I think, in letting debates take place only on TV between "the usual suspects" — all those same politicians and journalists who always debate everything. We must try to engage some more more people, and we must try to expand the debates to cover a lot more than the traditional for or against something.
Of course, listening skills need to be kept in shape, and exercises in processing and evaluating other people's thoughts can be great training, so listening to other people debating isn't bad — it just needs to be supplemented with also taking part.
Well, that's how I look at it :)
I agree about widening the scope of who can debate.